Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

An Open Letter to FCNL

Monday, December 26th, 2011

This email to Diane Randall, Executive Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), was written in response to an email fund appeal from her. I have written a number of such emails over the course of the last 3 years, and I normally get no response. This one I am going to make public.

Dear Diane Randall,

For decades, I contributed regularly to FCNL. I felt it stood for what I believed in, and I could count on it. I thought it was largely free of partisanship.

Then came the Obama election. After the election, I saw a metamorphosis in FCNL. It seemed to become a branch office of the White House - of a President who campaigned on escalation of the war in Afghanistan, increasing the military budget, and increasing the number of military troops. These were all things FCNL traditionally would have opposed. The President kept all those promises, and FCNL supported him in that. It campaigned for a budget that increased military spending and devoted over half of all discretionary spending to the military. Joe Volk, then FCNL’s Executive Secretary, sent out an email asking supporters to write letters to the editor supporting the President’s Afghanistan policy.

At that point, I resolved to stop supporting FCNL. I pointed out this radical change in FCNL to others, and urged them to not support FCNL. Many FCNL supporters had the same reaction. If you will look at donation trends, you will see that FCNL’s income dropped dramatically during that time. The FCNL budget and staff were reduced. The official propaganda from FCNL was that this was due to the economy, but I’m sure FCNL’s betrayal of its values was a large factor.

Gradually FCNL moved back to its traditional positions. However, it has yet to publicly admit it got off course. I am a Christian. I believe in repentance and redemption. But fundamental to that is admitting the sin. I believe there are thousands of us willing to come back as FCNL supporters if FCNL will admit it went seriously off-track after the Obama election, and pledges never again to sacrifice its values to engage in a partisan effort. But we’ve been waiting for years for this, and so far have not seen any sign of an admission by FCNL that it went terribly wrong in that period. I continue to wait.

Bill Samuel

Share/Save/Bookmark

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama, Christmas 2010

Saturday, December 25th, 2010

Merry Christmas, Mr. President, to you and your lovely family.

In your Christmas radio message you said, “many are fighting halfway around the globe – in hopes that someday, our children and grandchildren won’t have to.” I believe that you were sincere in saying that, but I ask you to look at that statement in light of the facts of history.

Many of your predecessors said the same thing with respect to the wars they were fighting. People on both sides of every war seem to say that. World War I was called the “war to end all wars.” This hope has proven itself through thousands of years of history to be misplaced. To the extent that history can be said to have proven anything, I believe it can be said to have proven that you don’t bring an end to wars by waging war. It not only doesn’t sound logical; it just doesn’t work.

Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Jesus said, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Is it just possible that Jesus knew what he was talking about? Is it possible that you really do not achieve good ends by slaughtering people?

In your Nobel address, you said you could not be guided as President by the examples of Gandhi and King. Your implication was that the ideas of peacemakers are impractical in “the world as it is.”

Is it possible that it isn’t people like Jesus, Gandhi and King who aren’t facing the reality of “the world as it is” but those that advocate and wage wars? None of these men ever held political office. Yet each of them accomplished a lot more for good than you, the most powerful political leader in the world, will ever achieve by squandering our nation’s dedicated people and resources on wars. And they lived in “the world as it is.”

Mr. President, I implore you to re-consider your following of an approach that has proven over and over again to be ineffective, and causes untold misery. I ask you to abandon the approach of endless wars and instead offer us the politics of hope and lead our country in more positive directions that will constructively use the idealism of those currently on the battlefield and our material resources.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Obama’s Double Standard

Friday, June 5th, 2009

In his June 4 speech at Cairo University, President Barack Obama said “Palestinians must abandon violence. . . . Hamas must put an end to violence . . .”

Now I strongly believe that Palestinians should abandon violence, and that includes Hamas. But what struck me in the speech is that no one else was asked to abandon violence; only the Palestinians.

President Obama nowhere in the speech demanded that Israel abandon violence. And nowhere did he promise that the United States would abandon violence. In fact, he spent a significant part of the speech justifying the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States is still, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said on April 4, 1967, “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today . . .”

I agree with President Obama’s statement in his speech “that violence is a dead end.” But if it is, why ask only one party to abandon it and why not abandon it ourselves?

I don’t think President Obama is even conscious of the inherent contradictions in what he said. Our society is so used to using “violence” (and “terror”) only to refer to actions by the marginalized that a mainstream politician like the President isn’t even thinking of the actions of Israel and the United States in terms of violence. This shows how distorted and sick thinking is in our society and in other privileged societies.

Later in the speech, the President said “we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments . . .” It isn’t spelled out explicitly, but the context makes it clear that what he is really saying is that the United States is justified in refusing to talk to the democratically elected Hamas because it is not a peaceful government. And despite the univeral sounding language, he is really only referring to one government, and he does not apply the same standard anywhere else.

The President strongly defended our ties to Israel even though their government is by no stretch a peaceful government - it kills far more innocent civilians than does Hamas (and it does so generally with U.S.-supplied weapons). And I think it is safe to say that the President would not take well to other governments refusing to deal with his Administration until it abandoned violence.

The contradictions I am pointing out here seem quite obvious, and yet I have yet to see another commentary that mentions them. I think addressing these contradictions is critical if we are to get to the point of realizing what the President correctly called “God’s vision” where “The people of the world can live together in peace.” Realizing the vision requires that the powerful as well as the marginalized turn from the ways of violence and domination.

Share/Save/Bookmark

No to Irresponsible Spending Proposal

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

Below is a message I sent to my Representative and Senators:

This is to demand you oppose Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” He said in his inaugural address that it is time for a “new era of responsibility.” Then he proposes the most irresponsible fiscal package in my lifetime! He was right in what he said in his speech. He is absolutely wrong for refusing to lead us into that new era, and instead going in the opposite direction. Obama proposed massive spending without saying how it would be paid for.

Public debt in this country is already 45% of GDP. We are bankrupt! And the national debt amounts to a massive income transfer program. Future generations of ordinary taxpayers will have large amounts of their income transferred to holders of the debt (currently mostly foreigners, as is the case with any bankrupt country). You may not be around then, but how can you sleep at night condemning them to misery because of the irresponsible policies approved by the U.S. Government now?

Democrats rightly criticized President Bush for being fiscally irresponsible. The answer to that is not for Democrats, when in power, to be far more irresponsible. Democrats used to look back at the Clinton years, and note that he moved the Federal budget into surplus. That was a good thing! You should imitate the fiscally responsible policies of the Clinton era instead of seeking to outdo Bush in irresponsibility.

Much of the proposed spending in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” is for good things. But it has to be paid for. It could be, but you would have to make hard choices which would enrage interests which give large amounts in campaign contributions. Do you have the courage to do so? Here are some areas where we might get the money to pay for selected portions of the proposed spending:

  • the bloated military budget, over half of the relatively controllable portion of the budget, and larger than that of all other countries combined. Rep. Barney Frank in October proposed a 25% cut in the military budget, which would be a good start.
  • repealing tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations.
  • repealing subsidies for corporate farms and animal-based agriculture (cause of 18% of global warming, according to the UN).
  • repealing subsidies for corn-based ethanol, which have caused world grain prices to skyrocket resulting in poor people dying of starvation according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, and which is environmentally irresponsible.

The only responsible choice is to refuse to vote for any massive spending plan which is not matched with means of financing it. I urge you to vote responsibly.

Share/Save/Bookmark